Illegal unless they make being topless legal for everyone else (who aren't mothers/aren't currently breastfeeding). Exposing one's breasts to feed a baby is public nudity so why should they be exempt from the law when someone who never produced a baby can't? Unless they make it for all, it has to be banned.
So the baby should be left to starve? Or, like dinz mentioned, forced into a public toilet to do so? Cos they're so sanitary, let's put a baby with a developing immune system in there...
Most mothers feed their baby discreetly, so what's the problem?
Also, people disagreeing with your opinion doesn't mean they hate you. It's a part of his thing called a "discussion".
Honestly I agree. It is silly being topless in public for females is illegal - breasts aren't a sexual organ. They're for breastfeeding. This isn't all that radical of an idea, there are states in 'murica which allow being topless in public if you're female. Jeez Louise.
Breasts are indeed sexual organs. I fully understand their function in feeding babies, but you can't deny the sexuality of the female breast. Just by saying it isn't a sex organ doesn't mean that every man in the world is suddenly going to stop dreaming about them.
That's like saying a foot is a sexual organ because some people have a foot fetish.
A sexual organ is not about whether or not people like it, it's about whether its function is actually for reproduction. Breasts are for caring for your offspring, not the act of producing that offspring itself.
That doesn't matter - it's irrelevant. It does not fit the definition of what a sexual organ is, which I'll paste right now if you want.
sex organ
noun [C]
› a part of the body involved in the production of babies
And of course they're going to react because it's illegal here. Unusual. Not allowed. Also, who actually removes their clothes in doors anyway? That would be odd in itself - male or female.
And before you call me a "Mother Hater" or something else that's complete perposterous, I'll have ya'll know that no, I don't hate mothers and their babies. I do however hate all the biased and perefial treatment that parents get. This balant favoritism is quite sickening and rage-inducing. I don't care if you give birth to the next Einstein or Hitler: just because you may have gave birth just like every other mammal on this planet does not mean you should recieve pampering and catering as if you done something worthwhile and miraculous. Newsflash: You didn't. If I could, I would leave this pro-natalist and family-obsessed planet.
"I do however hate all the biased and perefial treatment that parents get. This balant favoritism is quite sickening and rage-inducing."
The preferential treatment you're talking about has nothing to do with parents. It's for the wellbeing of the baby. I understand what you're saying and all, but this is not about you or the parent - it's for the children's sake. Of course some parents will take advantage of that, but we shouldn't jeopardize the parents' rights because some people abuse those rights.
Should breastfeeding in public be illegal or legal?
← View full post
Illegal unless they make being topless legal for everyone else (who aren't mothers/aren't currently breastfeeding). Exposing one's breasts to feed a baby is public nudity so why should they be exempt from the law when someone who never produced a baby can't? Unless they make it for all, it has to be banned.
--
charli.m
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
lolol555
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
TheOneWhoComesFromEnordro
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
So the baby should be left to starve? Or, like dinz mentioned, forced into a public toilet to do so? Cos they're so sanitary, let's put a baby with a developing immune system in there...
Most mothers feed their baby discreetly, so what's the problem?
Also, people disagreeing with your opinion doesn't mean they hate you. It's a part of his thing called a "discussion".
Honestly I agree. It is silly being topless in public for females is illegal - breasts aren't a sexual organ. They're for breastfeeding. This isn't all that radical of an idea, there are states in 'murica which allow being topless in public if you're female. Jeez Louise.
--
roadflasher
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Breasts are indeed sexual organs. I fully understand their function in feeding babies, but you can't deny the sexuality of the female breast. Just by saying it isn't a sex organ doesn't mean that every man in the world is suddenly going to stop dreaming about them.
--
lolol555
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That's like saying a foot is a sexual organ because some people have a foot fetish.
A sexual organ is not about whether or not people like it, it's about whether its function is actually for reproduction. Breasts are for caring for your offspring, not the act of producing that offspring itself.
--
roadflasher
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think virtually every man thinks of breasts sexually, and a very large percentage of women do, too.
If you don't believe me, take your top off at a restaurant and see if anyone reacts.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
lolol555
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I take it you've never been to Europe where topless beaches are the norm.
--
roadflasher
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Then you take it wrong. I lived in Spain for many years and I've traveled all over Europe. Yes, there are tits on all the beaches. And I love it.
This isn't Europe.
That doesn't matter - it's irrelevant. It does not fit the definition of what a sexual organ is, which I'll paste right now if you want.
sex organ
noun [C]
› a part of the body involved in the production of babies
And of course they're going to react because it's illegal here. Unusual. Not allowed. Also, who actually removes their clothes in doors anyway? That would be odd in itself - male or female.
--
roadflasher
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
...and breasts are directly involved in nourishing those babies. I would consider that "involved", certainly much more than feet are.
And before you call me a "Mother Hater" or something else that's complete perposterous, I'll have ya'll know that no, I don't hate mothers and their babies. I do however hate all the biased and perefial treatment that parents get. This balant favoritism is quite sickening and rage-inducing. I don't care if you give birth to the next Einstein or Hitler: just because you may have gave birth just like every other mammal on this planet does not mean you should recieve pampering and catering as if you done something worthwhile and miraculous. Newsflash: You didn't. If I could, I would leave this pro-natalist and family-obsessed planet.
Go ahead and hate on me, haters.
--
Petrichor.
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
gorillaphant
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"I do however hate all the biased and perefial treatment that parents get. This balant favoritism is quite sickening and rage-inducing."
The preferential treatment you're talking about has nothing to do with parents. It's for the wellbeing of the baby. I understand what you're saying and all, but this is not about you or the parent - it's for the children's sake. Of course some parents will take advantage of that, but we shouldn't jeopardize the parents' rights because some people abuse those rights.
You should read this too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bunmi-laditan/how-to-breastfeed-appropriately_b_5530806.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular